fisherymanagementfandomcom-20200213-history
User talk:Tima
Wikipedia material (replying to your paragraphs in my talk page) Robin - I notice that you have moved across several articles from Wikipedia to this Fisherymanagement wikicity. Whilst this is entirely legitimate, wouldn't it be better just to insert a link to the article itself on Wikipedia rather than duplicating it? :Yes and no - see details inserted below. Robin Patterson 21:52, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) Of course, if you expect these articles to be expanded and possibly "diverge" from wikipedia, in a more specialist forum like fisherymanagement, then OK. :I do. (That's surely part of this wiki's purpose!!) Robin Patterson 21:52, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) The downside is that we risk losing track of any changes that are made to the main wikipedia article, which a live link would maintain. :No, we don't - the link to the current version remains in the acknowledgment and can be repeated elsewhere in the article if desired (eg near the top of a long one). And anyone familiar with "our" article can compare with WP later (using the Page History as a guide) and copy good changes without further formality. Robin Patterson 21:52, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) (and second sentence in December) Another issue is that the imported article contains a lot of dead links which will have to be relinked to Wikipedia, or otherwise re-written in fisherymanagement. :True; people such as you who know what this site is capable of can decide whether each link should be left as a pointer to a future local article or linked to WP. Robin Patterson 21:52, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) In general it might be preferable to have mainly original articles in this fisherymanagement wikicity, and cross-reference anything that is already present in wikipedia, unless it is only sketchily covered there and could be expanded with more detail here. :Yes; "mainly" being a proportional term; when Fishfolk and others get really working on it, the proportion of WP will fall. Until then, and afterwards, the basic info is a local resource that saves you reinventing wheels and has the advantage of new local links whenever they can be made. Robin Patterson 21:52, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) Just a thought anyway. I'm certainly not complaining about anyone taking an interest in trying to build up the material here! --Tima 11:19, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) ---- (After having read the above comments ...) OK, Robin. Points taken. Value of User Talk pages By the way, I'm not sure if the "user talk page" is the easiest way to discuss these kinds of things - it might have been better to have sent you an email, but I wanted to try out the system! --Tima 05:46, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) :This is one of the prime uses of User Talk pages. Email is better for anything you wouldn't want all users or visitors to read; otherwise, put it here and other users can benefit and/or comment if they bother to look. :Now you can have a look at what I've been doing for the last hour or so. I'm off to catch a train home. Robin Patterson 06:12, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) And now, with your email not working from here and your Central Wikia page redirecting to this site, this may be the only obvious way to talk to you. Why I want to talk to you is to suggest that you give me some power to block vandals and to protect pages that are favourite targets. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC) SPC membership NZ and Oz were admittedly colonial powers (with recent revelations about Queensland's sugar slaves adding to the history) but they were never Great Powers. My implicit inclusion of UK with France and U.S. must have been based on a pre-Jan2005 webpage from somewhere. Noted for the future. Robin Patterson 01:09, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC) Dead-end links?? Bycatch isn't dead. Did you check them all? Is your monitor playing up? Robin Patterson 06:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC) :Er no, my monitor isn't playing up. Neither am I colour-blind. Just over-hasty and I didn't notice the colour of that link. There are also several dead-end links that I missed, I notice. Not sure why whoever did this was anticipating new pages to be written on certain words and not others, unless they were planning to write stuff at a later stage --Tima 07:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC) :(Later) Having just reinserted the link to bycatch I have realised how I came to mistakenly delete it. When you're editing a page there is no way of seeing whether a link is live - you just see the double-braces, and I assumed it was like the others as I was skimming through it edit mode. No sinister intent. --Tima 07:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Fully satisfactory explanations. One person who put some or most of those links in was planning to create some articles on them and did one or two and might do more but keeps hoping experts will instead. Experts who think there are too many not-yet-live links might consider whether time would be better spent creating articles than deleting links that could be wanted later. Sometimes the presence of a link is enough to get an article started when the muse strikes, whereas if there's no link the trouble of creating one makes the page creation just too much of a hurdle and the muse is disappointed. (|:-) Robin Patterson 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Wikia's New Look Our former sidebar is now at the top and has a maximum of four user-selected menus. Hover to see the "edit" link. You may like to select a couple of replacement categories, because "News" and "2006" are past it! Robin Patterson 01:55, February 13, 2011 (UTC)